Side-by-side comparison · 24 data points
| Ticket History | Proactive Bulk Tickets | |
|---|---|---|
| Tagline | ||
| Description | ||
| Screenshots | images | images |
| Languages | ||
| Platforms | ||
| Developer | ||
| Listed | — | — |
| Last updated | — | — |
Start the outbound conversation with a Proactive Ticket, Message and Campaign
| Metric | Ticket History | Proactive Bulk Tickets |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | 4.0 ★ | ★ 5.0 ★ |
| Total reviews | ★ 523 | 16 |
| Free plan | ★ Yes | — |
| Pricing | Free | Multiple plans available |
Based on the data on this page, Proactive Bulk Tickets is the stronger choice for most Zendesk Marketplace support teams — 5.0★ vs Ticket History's 4.0★ is a meaningful gap that usually reflects real product or support quality differences across the user base.
On pricing, Ticket History offers a free tier (Free) while Proactive Bulk Tickets starts at Multiple plans available. For early-stage teams validating fit, the free-tier path lets you run the app on real workloads before committing budget.
Ticket History has the larger user base (523 reviews vs 16), which usually maps to broader integration coverage, faster bug-fix cadence, and a deeper bench of community workflow patterns. Proactive Bulk Tickets's smaller cohort can be an advantage for niche workflows where the bigger app has accumulated bloat.
Recommended by size: small/early-stage support teams who need fast install and low risk should default to Proactive Bulk Tickets; mid-market and enterprise support teams with specific feature requirements should evaluate both — Ticket History's 523-review base may include the workflow context that matches your specific use case better than Proactive Bulk Tickets's broader-but-shallower coverage.
This verdict is generated from the live marketplace data on this page — rating, review count, pricing tier, and category position all refresh from the canonical Zendesk Marketplace listing every 24 hours. AppRanks does not accept payment to influence comparison outcomes; the methodology is documented on the About page and applies identically to every pair on the site.
Read each app's audit: Ticket History audit • Proactive Bulk Tickets audit
| Keyword | Ticket History | Proactive Bulk Tickets |
|---|---|---|
| trial included | Not ranked | #22 |
Ticket History is the cheaper option — it offers a free plan (Free). Proactive Bulk Tickets starts at Multiple plans available. Both publish their pricing on the Zendesk Marketplace; AppRanks mirrors what's listed on each refresh cycle.
Proactive Bulk Tickets has the higher average rating (5.0★ from 16 reviews) compared to Ticket History (4.0★ from 523 reviews). Both are tracked daily by AppRanks, so the figures here update each refresh cycle.
Proactive Bulk Tickets holds the higher average rating (5.0★ vs 4.0★). That is the one dimension AppRanks can separate them on here — read both apps' detail pages for the feature breakdown and recent listing changes.
Both apps are one-click installs from the Zendesk Marketplace. Ticket History has the deeper published review base (523 vs 16), which often — though not always — accompanies better-tested setup docs. AppRanks doesn't measure setup time directly: read the recent reviews on each app's detail page for user-reported install experience.
Ticket History typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (523 reviews). Proactive Bulk Tickets typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (16 reviews). A larger review base generally means the app has been exercised at scale — relevant if you are processing high volume or handling enterprise compliance requirements.
Migration support varies by app and category. Ticket History and Proactive Bulk Tickets both publish their export options on their marketplace listing pages (or in their support docs); some apps offer one-click import from competitors, others require CSV. The fastest check: search "import from Proactive Bulk Tickets" in each app's help center. AppRanks does not track migration tooling directly — this is a category-specific capability worth verifying before commitment.
